Is it true about the climate warming?...since the incredible revelations of Climategate, official climate science continues to embarrass itself...frankly, government sponsored scientists seem eager to keep the curse alive that is undermining their credibility...one wonders if it due to a strong allergic reaction to truth and objectivity...maybe current global warming science should now be referred to as 'Kardashian-science' in honor of manipulating the truth for a better story...now take the case of the persistent photoshopping manipulating of the historical climate records.....

(click on image to enlarge)

Name a single individual scientist, government official or blue-ribbon commission that publicly announced 10 to 20 years ago that all the historical climate temperature records were wrong, and thus there was a need for all to be altered carte blanche to conform to certain pattern.

That's right, you can't.

Hmmm...maybe because there never was a debate/discussion about a proposed blatant altering of historical evidence.

With absolutely no public concurrence to do so, non-elected climate scientists just decided to make it happen.

It's science on its worst agenda-driven behavior.

Of course, when the empirical truth comes out regarding the overstatement of global warming by govt climate researchers they then wonder why the public has a growing distrust of science and government.

Recently, climate analyst Paul Homewood has had a slew of articles regarding the very questionable alterations of various climate station records. His research has documented multiple instances of "adjustments", from the top of the world to the bottom, with the end result always being that late 20th century global warming appears to be greater than the originally recorded - but only after the adjustments.

An example of his work are the two climate station records in the accompanying graphs. One station is in Iceland and the other in Paraguay. Both examples reveal that historical, originally recorded temperatures of the past were significantly reduced, which obviously makes the recent modern global warming appear more unusual.

This is the "unprecedented" modern warming that advocates relentlessly push. But it is only unprecedented because the past temperatures were so drastically altered - literally, it's fake unprecedented warming relative to the cooling alternations applied primarily to the pre-1970 temperatures.

Multiple articles from the near past have been written about the continuing "global warming" fabrications by climate agencies - here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. It's not a pretty picture of supposed objective truth-seeking science.

Are all temperature adjustments bad or wrong? Absolutely not, as this and this article point out some merits.

Yet, indications from 3rd party analysis (here and here) indicates that potentially one-half of the hypothetical +0.8°C global warming since 1850 may be a result of the massive temperature adjustments applied to the entire historical record.

'Hypothetical' because the climate agencies cannot say with confidence what actual global temperatures were in the past (or are now):

"It is not possible to calculate the global average temperature anomaly with perfect accuracy because the underlying data contain measurement errors and because the measurements do not cover the whole globe."...

Finally, it would be one thing if climate agencies adjusted past temperatures with a one-time correction for any of the poorly reported historical temperatures. It's a whole different ballgame when climate agencies "correct" all past monthly historical temperatures every few months.

For example, did you know that NOAA/NCDC has "corrected" the January 1939 global temperature at least 7 times over the last 24 months? This is the count only when considering the 2nd decimal point changes. For corrections out to the 4th decimal point, it is highly likely January 1939 has been corrected 24 times out of the last 24 months.

And this is true for every single month going back to 1880.

Here's a commonsense suggestion to finally improve the credibility of climate science, and, most importantly, to assure the public's confidence in the global warming reported in the future:

An appointed 3rd party audit should be conducted by a team of non-climate scientists on all historical raw climate station temperatures; one-time corrections would then be applied utilizing a scientifically/statistically agreed upon standard; and, once corrected, past temperatures can never be "corrected" again by climate researchers.

Voila, the ongoing and distracting debate about the accuracy and truthfulness of global land/sea temperature records is smothered, once and for all.

How to pay for such a scientific endeavor? Easy. Take a few billion away from the spectacularly failed climate model efforts, especially since the current models rely on the fabricated temperature records. No wonder they're always so wrong.

For multiple decades, we've been warned by the elites and "experts" that extreme climate change is at our collective doorstep...severe record-setting weather events a common occurrence...CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases wreaking untold devastation & havoc...climate refugees swamping interior safe havens...and yet, at the end of 2014 the feared devastation, calamities and climate extreme records were still far and few between after 1990.....

(click on map to enlarge)

The above map depicts the greatest extremes of temperatures recorded and officially recognized as being legit by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a UN agency.

The WMO has been an avid participant pushing the climate disaster/catastrophe claims associated with the anthropogenic global warming political agenda. In conflict with their apparent agenda, the WMO happens to be responsible for determining the official records for extreme weather events across the globe.

Ironically, this proponent of CO2-caused weather extremes has officially documented the paucity thereof since the 1990s.

It was during the 1980s that the major national climate agencies and the UN began promulgating the idea that climate catastrophes and extremes were abundant, due to the growing levels of trace atmospheric CO2 emissions. The principal claim being the trace GHGs is causing an evermore hotter world, about to go from calamities to civilization cataclysm.

And as time wore on, the WMO and other "experts" were wrong - it just hasn't happened.

Examine the map closely and it will be noted that the 'newest' hemisphere/continent hot temperature record took place way back in 1978 - it's now 37 years later and we're all still waiting for those new temp extreme records.

One could conclude that the WMO's own official records have not been kind to the global warming scare. Amazingly, the same can be said for many other official weather extremes that the WMO keeps a tally of.

As can be seen, there are many climate records from the past that took place well before the 1990s. We are now into the 15th year of the 21st century and those predicted extremes remain a rare breed.

This should not come as a surprise though. Indeed, the world has suffered from incredible weather extremes, most of which were experienced prior to large GHG emissions due to natural climate and weather patterns.

With that said, earthly records are made to be broken - they always are. However, CO2 and other trace gases do not guarantee new records...but nature does, which the record books are filled with.

Cautionary note to world's elites and climate experts: Over the last 25 years, the world has witnessed multiple times more failed predictions of climate extremes than all the new record-setting weather events - a genuine exhibition of requisite humility may be due.

Climate "scientists" on the government dole claim that CO2 emission regulation will allow bureaucrats to tweak the world's climate...thus, "scientists" will provide the world's governing class with a means to "dial in" the Earth's desired temperature with a CO2 "climate control" knob...but as it turns out, it's an indisputable shiteload of fantasy bordering on delusional.....

(click on chart to enlarge)

Delusional fantasies? Pretty strong stuff one might say.

Oh well, let's review just six actual climate science facts to make the case.

===>First, we know that these same scientists don't even know where over 50% of CO2 emissions disappear to...

===>Second, we know (and these same scientists know) that the global temperature change response to CO2 has declined significantly - opposite of the IPCC's "consensus expert" predictions...

===>Third, we know that these same scientists have been predicting rapid, continuous, accelerating dangerous global warming for decades but it hasn't happened...

===>Fourth, since it is agreed by 97% of all climate scientists that global warming has essentially stopped for 17+ years (only the fringe quacks disavow this), these same bureaucrat/academia scientists have come up with an overflowing cornucopia of reasons why, which reveal absolutely zero consensus...

===>Fifth, we know that the $billion$ super computer climate models used by these same scientists are fatally flawed, thus absolutely worthless regarding future global and regional climate predictions...

===>Finally, as this accompanying chart of the empirical evidence indicates, while the per cent change in cumulative CO2 emissions dropped in a quasi-continuous pattern since 1979, the RSS annual global temperatures anomalies instead follow an opposite increasing trend.

Simply put, all the above scientific evidence falsifies the entire concept of a CO2 "control knob" for the world's climate.

Yet these on-the-dole scientists keep promoting this delusional, all-powerful climate "knob" fantasy at the major expense of not only the taxpayer pockets, but also the gargantuan expense of sound climate policy-making being derailed from the track of common sense and rationality.

Ahh...those stubborn facts just always seem to muck up the climate delusional dreams and nightmares of so many knob-fanatics and control-freaks.

Note: From this multiple dataset, an estimate of total human CO2 emissions from 1751 to 2013 can be calculated. Since the RSS satellite monthly dataset only goes back to 1979, the chart plots the annual per cent change in cumulative CO2 emissions since 1979 (starting with the calculated cumulative emissions from 1751-1979). The RSS plot represents the 12-month (year-end) average anomalies. Hey, don't know how to chart in Excel? It's easy to produce charts - you can do it too! Go here to learn how.

Another spectacular climate model & "expert" prediction failure...the abysmal predictions generated out of billion-dollar climate models are well documented...predictions for water levels of the Great Lakes are no better....

(click on chart to enlarge)

The vicious combination of climate "experts" driven by a political-alarmist agenda and the indisputably incompetent climate models has long misled the taxpaying public and policymakers.

As the NOAA chart of the Great Lakes on the left clearly indicates, water levels are above the long-term averages. The predicted "tipping point" water level reduction from global warming and climate change is AWOL.

The frequent and spectacular prediction failures of the computer simulations and experts has been widely noted in the past.

As the world's populace nutrition improves, according tothe experts at Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the IPCC with its built-in political agenda to demonize CO2 and global warming, reports the opposite...lying is no longer even an art form for the fear-mongers of global warming and climate change catastrophe fantasies...it's blatant and brazen.....

(click on to enlarge)

The experts now estimate that the number of undernourished has decreased some 17%, from 1990 to 2103 - approximately 165 million less. Yet for the IPCC's 2014 AR5 report, they report an increase of 75 million.

There is no scientific reason, nor objective rationale for the IPCC misleading policymakers and the public so egregiously.

"Rather than using up-to-date FAO data showing a steady decline in undernourishment during a period of increasing temperatures (which they either were aware of or ought to have been aware of), the IPCC chose to feature an increase in an obsolete data set that had been previously highlighted in an “policy-relevant monograph” cited by IPCC. IPCC coyly described this earlier dataset as “provisional”...Why didn’t IPCC clearly report the long-term decline in undernourishment during a period of temperature increase. This is information that is relevant to policy-makers. And, in particular, why did IPCC highlight a supposed increase in “provisional” data (more precisely now long obsolete data) when the increase changed to a decrease in the up-to-date version of the data?...It’s hard to think of a good reason."

The adjacent image represents a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice sheet boreholes. The image was included in a peer reviewed paper that was published in 1998, which is approximately the same time the infamous 'hockey stick' graph was produced.

Although this paper confirmed the findings of a massive amount of previous research that the Medieval Warming generated higher temperatures than the current warming, the IPCC instead conferred star status to the statistically-tortured 'hockey stick' graph, which showed the previous warming to be less than the current era, and then was subsequently found to be without credible merit - a statistical travesty.

Why did the IPCC go with the unproven, statistical abomination that quickly smeared (irreparably?) the reputation of climate science?

"Christy’s assessment, when combined with the UEA emails, provides substantial insight into how this hockey stick travesty occurred. My main unanswered question is: How did Michael Mann become a Lead Author on the TAR? He received his Ph.D. in 1998, and presumably he was nominated or selected before the ink was dry on his Ph.D. It is my suspicion that the U.S. did not nominate Mann (why would they nominate someone for this chapter without a Ph.D.?)...Instead, I suspect that the IPCC Bureau selected Mann; it seems that someone (John Houghton?) was enamored of the hockey stick and wanted to see it featured prominently in the TAR."

Instead of educating its readers about global warming reality, the Smithsonian delivers typically lame press release "science," enhanced with hyperbolic statements, which have been thoroughly debunked in the past.

Personally, I canceled my Smithsonian subscription over a decade ago after tiring from their constant anti-empirical, political-agenda science. But for those who still do subscribe, one might want to keep this infograph handy to help spot the magazine's bogus claims and bad science reporting.

====> "Other health threats have been enumerated by Robert Repetto, a United Nations Foundation economist, who says climate change will intensify smog, leading to “increased outbreaks of asthma and allergies,” and “exacerbate vector-borne diseases such as hantavirus, West Nile virus, Lyme disease and dengue fever.” Repetto also worries about the “extreme weather events” that some researchers say climate change will engender...Heat waves themselves pose a health risk, especially for young children and the elderly—and world-class athletes...Even people who don’t have to move will experience a bewildering sense of dislocation as the environment changes around them—as Northern winters start to be measured in weeks rather than months."

Establishment climate science has been a never-ending cornucopia of fraud, fabrications, misrepresentations and wild exaggerations that multiple skeptics have publicly exposed, much to the chagrin and angst of the anti-science "consensus."

Without much argument from the masses, the climate science "elites" have done a yeoman's job of tarnishing the overall reputation of the science community.

Yet, as much as we complain about the scientific wrongdoings in the climate realm, the same is happening in other research fields. And medical research is likely the super nova of scientific misconduct.

The two images on the left are explained by the above short video clip provided. In a nutshell, the consensus hypothesis that fats and cholesterol cause heart disease is a result of extreme cherry-picking and other fraudulent practices of establishment science.

And, this heart-healthy science fraud has uncanny similarities to what has happened in the climate science establishment, as written about in this JoNovaarticle.

The above short video clip is a teaser. The entire Catalyst show episode on heart health can be viewed here - it is well worth one's time. It is a reminder that scientists, in general, should not be trusted at face value.

It's also a warning to those who are worried about cardiovascular disease. Instead of accepting traditional medical advice from "experts", you may be better served doing your own due diligence on the actual science of heart disease causes and potential treatments. A good place to start is here (I own the Kindle version; an excellent, informative and eye-opener read for the layperson).

Government climate research agencies, such as NOAA/NCDC and NASA/GISS, do not publicize the fact that they adjust historical temperatures on an almost monthly basis.

They claim that their tampering with the actual historical evidence is "quality control". That's a blatant misdirection, as it is well understood by the people familiar with the situation that there is extreme pressure to report scary "global warming", so as to conform to the political agenda on climate change.

Since May 2008, the web site www.climate4you.com has been tracking the NOAA "adjustments", using two specific months as an example (see accompanying chart).

If there is zero to little global warming, then it is up to the bureaucrats to make it happen.

The most brute force way to fabricate global warming is to adjust those monthly temperatures prior to 1950 downward; then adjust the post-1950 temperatures higher. Wonder of wonders, as the chart reveals, that's exactly what the bureaucrat-scientists did - to the tune of a whopping +2.2°C per century trend rate, in this specific case, since May 2008.

Not so shabby, especially if they can keep that level of science hoaxdom up across all historical months going into the future.

And America's worthless mainstream press goes right along with this fakery, with the sole goal of keeping the U.S. taxpayer in the dark to the benefit of politicians, their favorite greeny-crony capitalists and the 'at-the-public-trough' climate agencies.

NASA's famous in-house climate quack rivals notorious doomsday cultists, such as Harold Camping and others - as the empirical evidence reveals, James Hansen's headline grabbing prediction of boiling oceans, from too much CO2, is from the theater of propaganda absurdity

James Hansen and his disciples at NASA's climate research agency (GISS) have become infamous for their climate doomsday predictions since the late 1980s. (Many of those end-of-the-world type predictions can be found here.)

Likely, the most absurd, recently published, fear-mongering NASA's Hansen prediction was that the oceans will soon be boiling from increased atmospheric CO2 levels (click on James Hansen picture for video of the "boiling" prediction).

Depending on the salinity of the given area's ocean/sea water, the boiling point will range from greater than 212F degrees to 215F degrees. After decades of massive human CO2 emissions how close are the oceans' temperatures to NASA's doomsday boiling?

It's not even a disaster-twinkle in Harold Camping's eyes.

The above chart plots the impressive growth of CO2 levels since 1880, and the associated, yet incredibly small increase of the oceans' temperature (°F). For context, the charts include plots of NOAA's global, N. and S. Hemisphere, U.S. continental and the Met Office's Central England temperatures.

None of these plots depict the "runaway" warming predicted by Hansen (note the near-boiling 210°F on left axis).

To be more specific, for the oceans to do a James Hansen boil, they need to warm by only some 140F degrees. But over the last 132 years, they have warmed less than one degree - not exactly "runaway" as envisioned by NASA.

Additionally, if we are on the path to runaway boiling oceans, the UK's home island would be experiencing some very hellish warming in recent times. Although the Central England temperatures have increased since 1880, over the last 15 years they are declining at a -7.90°F/century rate - that's right, a minus 7.9 degrees per century.

There is hope though. Like Harold Camping, James Hansen appears to be backtracking from his green-religion, non-scientific predictions.

"The pressure is ramping up on Stephan Lewandowsky at quite a rate of knots. The illusion that his paper was a bona fide contribution to the academic literature has faded away with the news that his headline - linking denial of the US moon landing and AGW scepticism - was not even supported by his data. The first allegations of academic fraud have been made."

The credibility and reputation of the entire science community continues to be sacrificed by "scientists" with a political agenda, especially any scientist who is a proponent/advocate of catastrophic global warming and climate change.

The level of science misconduct alleged in the Lewandowsky affair again establishes why there needs to be 'freedom of information acts' that allow the public to discover the truth. And in fact, a 'FOIA' has been filed in this case. This should get very interesting.

Global warming science facts can be very disturbing at times - NOAA has been a leader in fabricating temperatures (faux warming), which many view as faux (fake) climate science

(click on image to enlarge)

'C3' and others have often written about the fabrication of global warming by various climate agencies around the world. NOAA has been at the forefront of "adjusting" historical temperatures to fabricate increased warming for modern decades (1960's and more recent) and increased cooling for the earlier decades (pre-1960's).

The adjacent chart visually depicts the changes to monthly global temperatures that NOAA has made since 2008 (updated through May 2012). Since 2008 they have "adjusted" every single month back to January 1880 (that's 1,548 months of "adjusted" empirical evidence through 2008) except for one solitary month (December 2006).

The chart is a plot of coolest temperature adjustment to the warmest temperature adjustment - from left to right. Summary factoids below:

1. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "cooled" 754 months

a. 49% of all months had their historical temperatures lowered

b. Total "cooling" applied was -29C degrees

2. Out of 754 "cooled" months, only 17 of those had dates post-1959.

a. That's only 2% - one would naturally expect close to 50% of all cooled months to be post-1959 if adjustments were applied with robust scientific rationale

3. Out of 1,548 monthly temperature records, NOAA "warmed" 793 months

a. 51% of all months had their historical temperatures raised

b. Total "warming" applied was +23C degrees

4. Out of 793 "warmed" months, 570 had dates post-1959

a. That's 72% - not exactly random; more like adjustments due to a non-scientific rationale

Keep in mind, when reviewing the above factoids and chart that these are NOAA adjustments made to historical temperatures (January 1, 1880 thru December 31, 2008) since 2008. The NOAA adjustments to the historical temperature dataset made prior to 2008 have also been massive, as indicated here by an Oak Ridge National Laboratory analysis.

Clearly, since the Obama election of 2008, NOAA has pursued a frequent policy of temperature adjustments (literally monthly) to meet some non-scientific objective. Their methodology has primarily consisted of lowering the majority of temperature records prior to 1960 and raising those post-1959. The cumulative effect of all these adjustments is to build a better case that modern warming is a result of human CO2 emissions.

No other major climate science agency has pursued such an aggressive (ie, frequent) process of fabricating temperatures.

Finally, some proponents of the NOAA methodology attempt to rationalize all these adjustments as "quality control/management" which is patently absurd. During 2012 alone, NOAA has "quality control" adjusted the entire historical temperature record at least 18 times - for example, they have reported at least 18 different temperatures for January 1880 over the past 5 months. This is not "quality control" in any sense that experts of quality control would understand. Instead, it's ludicrous faux-science for non-scientific reasons, month after month, plain and simple.

Conclusion: The global warming science facts are that NOAA promotes a fake style of climate science by essentially fabricating temperatures - it's enhanced modern "global warming," either by raising or cooling the appropriate temperature records.

Factual, empirical evidence is always a bitch when it strikes at the heart of a belief system - and James Hansen deserves to be a bitch slapped for the catastrophic global warming hoax religion he's peddled, which is empirically meritless

Read here. After 3 decades of predicting global warming disaster, one would think that NASA's James Hansen would finally give the 'doom and gloom' spiel a rest. But like a moth attracted to a flame (or a broken record?), Hansen couldn't resist doing the same old, same old in a recent opinion piece in the once proud NY Times.

Of course, the reason they call it an 'opinion' piece is that it doesn't have to include any empirical evidence that would embarrass the author, or none of those inconvenient facts challenging one's veracity. As a result, it's a perfect forum for Hansen since he can let fly with the surreal climate misinformation and his favored speculative disaster scenarios.

But when a "scientist" continually pushes bogus catastrophic fears on the public, they put themselves in harm's way for a well deserved major bitch-slapping.

And guess what? A global warming research expert, and a number-cruncher extraordinaire, decided to slap some sense into Hansen.

As Bob Tisdale makes perfectly clear in his response to Hansen's over-the-top catastrophic lameness, Hansen's catastrophic global warming disaster spiel has no empirical legs to speak of - it is the quintessential, proverbial emperor without clothes situation.

1. "Unfortunately, your efforts with climate models, and the efforts of the other modeling groups, have not been successful. Far from it. And since your opinions are based on the results of your climate models, one has toconclude that your opinions are as flawed as the models."

2. "...the instrument-based global surface temperature record since 1901 and the IPCC’s climate model simulations of it do not confirm the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming; they contradict it."

3. "The climate models used in the IPCC’s (2007) 4 Assessment Report show surface temperatures should have warmed about 2.9 times faster during the late warming period (1976-2000) than they did during the earlywarming period (1917-1944)."

4. "The climate model simulations are being driven by climate forcings, including manmade carbon dioxide, which logically show a higher rate during the later warming period. Yet the observed, instrument-basedwarming rates for the two warming periods are basically the same."

5. "In other words, there’s little evidence that the carbon dioxide you demonize in your op-ed has had any measurable effect on how fast global surface temperatures have warmed. We independent climate researchers have known this for years."

6. "...natural processes are responsible for most if not all if the warming over the past 30 years, a warming that you continue to cite as proof of the effects of greenhouse gases."

7. "ENSO is a natural process that you and your associates at GISS exclude in many of the climate model-based studies you publish, because, as you note, your “coarse-resolution ocean model is unable to simulate climate variations associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation processes.”

8. "If climate models are not able to simulate ENSO, then they do not include a very basic process Mother Nature has devised to increase and slow the distribution of heat from the tropics to the poles."

9. "The satellite-era sea surface temperature data reveals that ENSO, not carbon dioxide, is responsible for the warming of global ocean surfaces for the past 30 years..."

10. "In fact, the satellite-based sea surface temperature data indicates that, when major El Niño events are followed by La Niña events, they can and do act together to cause upward shifts in the sea surface temperature anomalies of the Atlantic, Indian and West Pacific Oceans."

11. "...those ENSO-induced upward shifts in the Atlantic-Indian-West Pacific data are responsible for practically all of the global sea surface temperature warming for the last 3 decades."

12. "Using those IPCC climate models in another group of comparisons, it shows that there are no similarities, none whatsoever, between how the sea surface temperatures of the individual ocean basins have actually warmed over the past 30 years and how the climate models show sea surface temperatures should have warmed if carbon dioxide was the cause."

As they say, read the whole bitch-slapped James Hansen memo; and, if you would like to support Bob's efforts as he dismantles the catastrophic global warming hoax, datapoint by datapoint, then buy his book (and yes, 'C3' did just that - still haven't had time to read, though).

In addition to the above, 'C3' has done its own 'bitch slap' of Hansen here, here and here. Because the empirical evidence so overwhelmingly refutes Hansen's non-scientific disaster predictions, the bitch slapping is actually fairly easy to do.

For even more critiques of Hansen's climate science pathetic-ness, visit this page.

The climate science community literally went off the rails with the new 'hockey stick' science introduced by Michael Mann - from utilization of questionable statistical techniques to the ugly Climategate and Fakegate fiascoes, a 'dark science force' was unleashed which is still reverberating

Read here. There is a growing consensus among experts that bogus science does significant and irreparable harm to both the science community and the general public. And there is a greater realization that bogus science is happening way too frequently.

A new study takes a crack at the quantification of bogus "questionable research practices" (QRP). Below are a few findings and quotes related to the study:

"John et al. used multiple methods to assess the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRP) among psychology researchers. They found a surprising high prevalence of such practices in their study."

"...simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis. QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage. QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception."

"QRPs can waste researchers’ time and stall scientific progress, as researchers fruitlessly pursue extensions of effects that are not real and hence cannot be replicated. More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself. This can lead to a “race to the bottom,” with questionable research begetting even more questionable research."

For a better understanding (and a fascinating read to boot) of the 'hockey stick' science disaster, read this book. Read a previous 'C3' summary on the same subject.

Look closely at the above - this is what "boiling" oceans look like after some 1.3 trillion tons of CO2 emissions poured into the atmosphere since 1850. As this tropical island paradise indicates, the long held belief of CO2 caused global warming is not supported by the tropic's data in the least, let alone supporting NASA's Hansen's recent crazy prediction of boiling oceans.

..........

At the 2:12 minute mark of this recent video, Hansen does his crazy "boiling ocean" hype - it's a total disregard of facts and plausibility. Despite this craziness, there are scads of American coastal elites and lazy (stupid? gullible?) mainstream media types that buy into Hansen's ludicrous, catastrophic warming "science" predictions.

Still think there are runaway greenhouse effect facts that would lend credence to boiling oceans? Think again - expert tropical sea temperature measurements are conclusive - it ain't happening.

The Cook Island sea surface temperature data are another factual reality check - the tipping point of runaway global warming is not taking place and, without question, should be heavily ridiculed by all the legitimate science community and an objective press as the bogus scare hype it represents.

Runaway greenhouse effect facts: "Tipping point" global warming is not supported by the evidence; it's not even remotely plausible per the empirical data from the tropics; the world is not going to end from human-caused boiling oceans; and, NASA's James Hansen is possibly crazy, with fame, fortune and the drooling love of the MSM press lapdogs.

The liberal media's James Fallows has confirmed he's far from being the brightest bulb on the planet - Hansen's disciples at 'Real Climate' convinced Fallows that Hansen's 1981 climate model is the holy grail, not his later models, nor the more recent IPCC models

(click on images to enlarge)

Read here. The 'Real Climate' scientists are basically playing a shell game with James Fallow, where apparently the pea is Fallow's brain - guess where your brain is James?

These scientists found an old 1981 paper that James Hansen authored containing computer model predictions about global warming. They then pulled an ancient chart from the paper and doctored it up, which the Atlanic Monthly's Fallows obviously didn't look too closely at (the leftmost chart above), nor did he bother to compare with more recent climate model output.

The first problem with that chart is that the actual observed temperatures that Hansen plotted (black dots) are not the same as the red line temperature values that the "Real" Climate scientists used. For good subterfuge reasons, these "scientists" covered up (replaced?) Hansen's actual temps with fabricated temps - jeeez...somehow they forgot to point that out to the liberal media and Fallows. Hmmm...I wonder why?

The middle chart highlights the temp trough (1966, denoted by gold circle, gold arrow and red dotted line) of the observed temperatures that Hansen used in 1981. Soooo...the actual temperatures were covered up with replacements to make Hansen predictions look better - doh!

The second major issue with this chart is that alarmists claim that human CO2 has impacted the climate and global temperatures prior to 1980. The "Real" Climate scientists are using an old Hansen chart that shows no differing impact until 1990 - not even climate skeptics would produce something this egregiously wrong.

The rightmost chart represents the Hansen models as of 1988, which he used for his famous 1988 Congressional performancetestimony. Reviewing the 1988 model output of that same chart, it is clear Hansen felt that CO2 was impacting climate well before 1990.

Also, the predictions of Hansen's 1981 chart are not in sync with the output from the later models. Year 1980 is a prime example of this disconnect.

Going back to the middle chart, the old model prediction for 1980 (gold circle, gold arrow and blue dotted line) is significantly below the prediction of the 1988 computer model output (the blue circle and blue arrow).

Finally, the chart that they used to dupe Fallows with does not reflect the current reality of observed temperatures versus James Hansen's famous 1988 model predictions. (And most certainly, that old 1981 chart is at severe odds with the 2007 IPCC model output.)

Look closely at that chart on the right again. The green curve is James Hansen's prediction of global temperatures if the world did not agree to strict CO2 emission reductions. In fact, the world has thumbed its collective noses at the CO2 restrictions and Hansen. End result? Real world global temperatures are well below the infamous Hansen predictions that are his typical alarmist hysteria. BTW, the prediction for 2011 is highlighted with a blue circle, and the real NASA/GISS and HadCRUT 2011 temperatures are represented by those much lower black and red dots, respectively.

As the above articulates, the 1981 predictions by Hansen were later supplanted by Hansen's newer model predictions from his 1988 Congressional testimony. In essence, Hansen turned his back on the old predictions (but just recently resurrected by others, not Hansen).

The fact that James Fallow fell for such an obvious con game by the climate "scientists" is of no real surprise - the liberal / left old school media are really at a near loss challenging this level of bogus science.

Conclusion: Reading Fallows' anti-science, liberal media spin can't make one feel good about the current state of the media press; nor good about our taxpayer funded scientists putting out Fakegate-style fraud. It's a sad state of affairs, which Fallows et al. makes worse.

Within the realm of climate change / global warming alarmism, there are scientists who practice admitted fraud, such as Peter Gleick, then there are those who practice incompetence - meet the extraordinarily "incompetent" Jeff Masters of wunderground.com

The global warming alarmism science community has an alarming number of fraudsters (google Fakegate and Climategate), and it has an overabundance of pathological exaggerators and serial incompetents: meet Jeff Masters, per one of his critics.

Steve Goddard of Real-Science has been tracking the proclamations and predictions of the Wunderground's weather "guru" with much glee and entertainment.

Steve has identified how Masters always takes current individual severe weather events and then claims the event is unprecedented or unusual in weather history. Unfortunately for the public (and Wundergound's reputation) Jeff is always wrong a lot and Steve takes no prisoners in pointing out the unequivocal and accelerating incompetence.

The final word on the "incompetent" Jeff Masters: obviously, ignorant of severe weather history and also appears to be a serial exaggerator to boot.

Corruption of climate science takes all sorts of forms - one is to fabricate global warming temperatures after the fact, using "correcting" algorithms that NASA / GISS favors, which it now appears to have been outsourced to a Google-funded effort - aka 'Google Warming'

Read here and here. The combined revelations of Climategate and Fakegate have well documented the culture of corruption and conspiracy that IPCC climate science has unleashed on the world over the past few decades. The revelations also unleashed the unbelievable condoning and cheerleading of actual scientific fraud, lies and fabrication by many in academia and journalism - is it any wonder the public's belief in climate science is plummeting.

One especially nefarious means of climate science corruption is to fabricate global warming temperatures from the original dataset of historical temperatures. Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, the fabricating of fake temperatures to boost the political agenda of global warming alarmists has been a preferred technique of major climate "research" agencies, even to the extreme of multiple fabrications within a month's time period.

For example, the adjacent chart reveals the recent 2011 fabrication of regional temperatures in Iceland that even the Icelandic Meteorological Office states is "grossly in error."

"...that GHCN have created a false warming trend in Iceland and Greenland , and GISS have amended every single temperature record on their database for Reykjavik going back to 1901...as the blue line shows, have magically made this warm period disappear, by reducing the real temperatures by up to nearly 2 degrees...Meanwhile the Iceland Met Office say that “The GHCN "corrections" are grossly in error in the case of Reykjavik”."

The adjustments done to historical temperatures during 2011 provides further evidence that climate data corruption is alive and well within the climate science community. But the big surprise is who actually performed the magical global warming of Arctic regions....

"To isolate these “abrupt shifts”, they use an algorithm. And it was changes to this algorithm in July 2011 by a Google Summer Student[add'l info here]...that suddenly produced this swathe of anomalous adjustments in Greenland, Iceland and Siberia. The Icelandic Met have confirmed that there have been no station moves or other non-climatic factors, which would have created the need for the adjustments in Iceland, and of course the algorithms in use previously in GHCN V2 and V3 did not spot anything unusual in the temperature data."

Voila, we can now add the term 'Google Warming' to the climate debate - perhaps understood to mean the following?: "to fabricate global warming."

The disgraced climate science-fraud Peter Gleick of 'Fakegate' fame is not alone in the realm of climate science malfeasance - indeed, the lies of disaster alarmism persist as insurance companies and NOAA are still pushing climate change fraud

Read here. One of the world's foremost experts takes the large insurance companies and NOAA to task for brazenly misleading the public and policymakers about global disaster trends.

If there was ever a definitive indicator that science fraud is being perpetrated, the collaboration of big insurance companies and government bureaucrats has to be the best-of-breed known.

"NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and NCDC head Tom Karl write in Physics Today about the 14 "billion dollar disasters" tabulated by NOAA for 2011 and ask "Why did we see such expensive damage last year?" Their answer, predictably, includes "climate change" and is followed by a lengthy exposition on why NOAA needs more money.

Reality Check: Lubchenco and Karl somehow failed to note that NOAA and NCDC have cautioned against drawing any such conclusions from the "billion dollar disasters." And even though Lubchenco and Karl cite the recent IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, they also somehow forgot to mention this part: "Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded." Deceiving."

Summary: Despite the well publicized fraud and deception of the amazing Fakegate climate science, major business and government officials continue pushing climate change fraud even when the known empirical evidence refutes their climate change claims.

The FakeGate web site will remind Internet visitors forever of the lunacy and corruption of global warming alarmism pushed on the public without remorse by the left / progressive / green elites

Read here. The Daily Bayonet does an excellent job mocking the activist groups that made Fakegate not only possible but are also caught condoning the obvious corruption of climate science that took place.

"You almost have to feel sorry for the folks at DeSmogBlog...Their moment of glory after they revealed the Heartland Institute’s documents took only days to blow up in their faces, and they’ve been playing defense ever since...Brendan DeMille is upset that the shocking admission from a once-respected scientist that he committed fraud to obtain the documents became the story..."

And as a result, there is now a new web site, Fakegate.org, that will forever immortalize the global warming alarmism lies and deception that the National Center of Science Education, Huffington Post, DeSmogBlog, Greenpeace, ThinkProgress and the Pacific Institute have come to represent.

Is it any surprise that public opinion in regards to global warming concerns has plummeted in recent years because the never ending climate change fakery and dishonesty that these alarmist groups continuously push?

"Dealing with global warming ranks at the bottom of the public’s list of priorities; just 28% consider this a top priority, the lowest measure for any issue tested in the survey."

Thank you, green lunatics and leftist idiots!

“Basically, [the fake memo] reads like it was written from the secret villain lair in a Batman comic. By an intern.”

'Fakegate' has reminded the public of the prevalent fraud and deception perpetrated by global warming alarmism - the IPCC's hurricane "science" is one such example

Read here(h/t Bishop Hill). The 'Fakegate' style of science perpetrated by Peter Gleick is alive and well within the IPCC, where all bureaucrat scientists seemingly channel the 'Peter Gleick' methodology. This methodology primarily embraces the politician's mindset of elections: say-and-do-anything to get elected, including lying, sprinkled liberally with criminal fraud and unethical activities when required.

Unfortunately for the public and policymakers, this 'Peter Gleick' style of climate science is evident in the global warming alarmism claims made by the IPCC, including those about hurricanes. This is the latest expert analysis on IPCC hurricane "science":

"More trouble looms for the IPCC. The body may need to revise statements made in its Fourth Assessment Report on hurricanes and global warming. A statistical analysis of the raw data shows that the claims that global hurricane activity has increased cannot be supported...tests six IPCC statements against raw data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) Administration..."When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances." This isn't indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms...The IPCC continues: "It is more likely than not (> 50%) that there has been some human contribution to the increases in hurricane intensity." But, as Hatton points out, that conclusion comes from computer climate models, not from the observational data, which show no increase..."The IPCC goes on to make statements that would never pass peer review,"..."

And btw, Kevin Trenberth, the major IPCC climate scientist, and also co-author with the notorious Peter Gleick, is the principal player behind the global warming alarmism "science" of hurricanes.

"The IPCC's AR4 chapter lead was Kevin Trenberth, who features prominently in the Climategate emails. In 2005, the National Hurricane Center's chief scientist Chris Landsea resigned his post in protest at the treatment of the subject by Trenberth..."I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."

The former American Geophysical Union (AGU) leader on scientific integrity, Peter Gleick, confesses to being the antithesis of integrity - will the AGU now perform a slap-on-the-hand cover up of one of its own?

Based on recent experience of the investigations of scientific wrongdoing in the realm of "consensus" global warming science, the official whitewash (coverup?) and the usual condoning (the-ends-justify-the-means) rationale will likely fall into the laps of Gleick's former "integrity" AGU comrades. And the members of the integrity (exoneration?) task force are:

The travesty of Kevin Trenberth's climate predictions is only challenged by those of climate modeler James Hansen - they are both consistently wrong

Kevin Trenberth, an IPCC climate "scientist", is widely known for both his aggressive smearing of his science critics and his dog-awful climate predictions.

Like a beggar-person addicted to alcohol, Trenberth seems to say and predict any CAGW outcomes to assure a continual flow of government research monies, including the prediction that global warming will cause frequent extreme precipitation events. Like many of his global warming climate predictions, he was wrong.

Climate researchers Dravitzki and McGregor analyzed precipitation events for the northern region of New Zealand and could find no evidence of what-in-the-hell Trenberth was talking about - another major prediction fail per the peer reviewed empirical data.

"Working with data from 18 meteorological observation stations located in and about the Waikato region...developed daily precipitation time series covering the period 1900-2007, where they averaged the precipitation values..."since 1900 there have been no significant variations in the total annual precipitation nor in the occurrence or magnitude of extreme precipitation events," and they say that these events "...write that "the consistency of the precipitation totals suggests that the current economically important water supply is secure within the region." And we would add that their finding of no evidence for the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC over a 107-year period -- when climate alarmists claim the world warmed at a rate and to a level of warmth that were unprecedented over the past millennium or more - suggests that the projections of Trenberth and the IPCC are not what they are cracked up to be..." [Stacey Dravitzki, James McGregor 2011: International Journal of Climatology]

Read here. Most U.S. colleges, are controlled by liberal / left-wing oriented faculty and administrators that wholeheartedly embrace politically correct science. To put it another way, non-empirical, anti-science results, driven by Democrat / progressive political agendas, are the cat's pajamas for academia. Purdue University is no exception.

"I read the scientific research article upon which the press release was based. What I found was shocking. The press release issued by Purdue University was not just tendentious and misrepresentative. It was plainly deceptive."

For most scientists at Purdue, human-induced global warming is the villain that causes almost all known and future ills of civilization. The list is long but there is always room for one more. And now, oh thank goodness!, a scientist has found a new climate change threat that Purdue can take credit for. To paraphrase the Purdue scientist: "climate change will kill the walnut tree."

He declares this outcome as a testament to his anti-science AGW faith. He declares this yet this same tree species has survived many extreme climate changes (warming and cooling) over millions of years. How extreme?

Well, just over the last 10,000 years, said walnut trees have existed through the major climate changes the adjacent chart reveals.

At the bottom is a pink bar that represents an approximate 1 degree increase in climate since the trough of the Little Ice Age. In contrast, the bars above the pink one represent much greater swings in climate over prior periods.

Clearly, the walnut tree species is a survivor of extreme change. It remains a hearty and enduring specimen today (read the linked article) that will weather well any changes that the climate over the next few centuries throws at it.

Regarding this Purdue scientist though, history is not likely to treat him well. He sacrificed his and Purdue's credibility to the anti-science god of political correctness, which anyone with an internet connection can quickly eviscerate and prove to be bogus.

When one starts working with temperature data from various climate research agencies, one begins to notice rather bizarre style of science that would likely qualify as fraud in the mind of a normal person. In the case of NOAA / NCDC, this Obama "science" research group is demonstrably fabricating new "global warming" every single month. [Ed: Updates here and here]

Below is a simple example of the historical temperature record changes being done by Obama's NOAA on a monthly basis:

As can be seen, literally, Jane Lubchenco and her team are changing historical temperature records each and every month (note how they have "warmed" May 2008 since the NOAA report of December 2008) - even changing the historical record back to the very beginning, the January 1880 temperature record.

We asked a well known climate expert, Dr. Timothy Ball, if what Obama's NOAA / NCDC climate scientists are doing is common in the general science community: that is, is it common to constantly revise historical empirical evidence? Here is his response:

"Absolutely Not. There are adjustments to the raw data done by each nation when it collects the data. For me there are even questions about this, but it means that what goes to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and then to the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) and used as “raw data” is already adjusted. Post-collection adjustments are unnecessary and unacceptable."

With that said, it appears Lubchenco's NOAA is conducting a corrupt-like style of science that amounts to an Orwellian revision of history and empirical evidence. Not necessarily a surprise when a left / progressive 'Big Green' political hack is put in charge.

So what has been Jane's impact on temperature history with all these small revisions being done on a monthly basis? Well...one would expect that proponents of global warming alarmism would want to make modern temperatures warmer and earlier temperatures cooler.

Surprise! That exact politically-correct green agenda is robustly being carried out by NOAA's "scientists" as seen below.

The above record of temperature change over the four months since July 2011, by NOAA & NCDC personnel, is definitely not random. There is a significant man-made pattern to the cooling and warming changes.

Soooo...since Obama's "science" team has been in place, how much have they changed the historical temperature records?

Examining the historical record changes since 2008, the same pattern emerges with warming changes dominating after 1951 - "Unequivocal" global warming by humans indeed! Those cooling changes dominate the period prior to 1940. Lubchenco even provides "unequivocal" global cooling on demand - what an amazing goddess of left / liberal / progressive science!

Back to the facts. And when comparing the left axis of both charts, it becomes abundantly clear that all those small changes done on a monthly basis by NOAA starts accumulating to become ever larger changes over a few years. Obviously, Obama's team believes in man-made warming, especially when they can simply accomplish it on their PCs.

Most importantly for policymakers and the public, the above data falsification is good reason not to trust anything the green activist Jane Lubchenco says, nor any of her NOAA / NCDC minions carrying out her political agenda.

Special note: During the month of December 2011, NOAA / NCDC had at least 4 different6 different versions of their global dataset available for download from its ftp site. Older versions are overwritten by the newer versions as they are uploaded by the agency (NCDC uses the same file name over and over apparently). NASA's GISS uploaded their first major revision of the year (December 2011) that affects all historical temperatures. The HadCRUT series has not had a major (entire historical dataset) revision this year from what we know.

Read here. Green fraud is endemic within the academic community and is a major reason why the public now view science with less esteem. The Yale 360 forum provides further proof that the academia realm is less interested in honest science than in perpetuating the green fraud hysteria of climate change.

Case in point. A green propagandist, Elizabeth Grossman, had her hysterical ocean acidification article published by Yale 360. The article claims that a massive oyster die-off was caused by ocean acidification, which is supposedly caused by human CO2 emissions. Unfortunately for the public, this Yale 360 article is another "gross" misrepresentation of scientific truth and the actual empirical evidence.

Sooo...why did the oysters at the oyster farm really die? Here are the real science reasons that Yale 360 and Grossman decided the public really did not want to know:

Larval and juvenile shellfish are highly sensitive to acidic (low pH) seawater because their shells are formed from calcium carbonate, and dissolves when pH is low

Because this hypoxic and relatively acidic up-welled water is coming from deep basins and is cold (8 – 10 oC), it is saturated with dissolved gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen while at the same time being low in oxygen as a result of biological decomposition in the benthic zone

When hatcheries heat this gas-saturated seawater to 25 – 28 oC in order to meet the temperature requirements of young shellfish, the seawater becomes super-saturated

Preliminary experiments indicate that oyster larvae are very sensitive to gas super-saturation under these conditions

A third problem for shellfish hatcheries is the recent increase in the prevalence of a pathogenic bacterium (Vibrio tubiashii or Vt) that seems to out-compete other, more benign species in this distorted environment

High levels of mortality in shellfish hatcheries and in the wild have been associated with high levels of Vt in 2006, 2007, and intermittently in previous years, such as in 1998 when environmental conditions favored disease outbreaks

There is potential for further stress to oyster seed given the difference between water conditions in the hatcheries where larvae are produced, and quality of water found in the remote settings

In essence, natural climate change, in the form of ENSO, causes cold water of the Pacific to rise to the surface during certain periods. This colder water has a higher concentration of CO2 gas. The fish hatchery pumps the cold water into the farm tanks and then heats the water. This act of heating the cold water then causes it to become CO2 super-saturated. In addition, the freshly pumped sea water contains higher levels of bacteria (associated with a specific natural ENSO climate mode) dangerous to the oyster larvae/juveniles.

Voila, a perfect storm of predictable factors cause a die-off of farm oysters, robustly a result of natural climatic conditions. Atmospheric CO2 levels and human CO2 emissions had nothing to do with this incident.

Conclusion: The academic-oriented Yale 360 environmental forum is not to be believed on any climate change or ocean acidification issue, as it is more a forum of green hysteria that is incredibly vulnerable to perpetuating scary green myths and anti-science fraud B.S.

Read here. Well, it would seem Richard Muller and his Berkeley team take the weekly chutzpah honor with their grandiose PR media blitz and speculative claim for their non-peer reviewed literature.

The obvious arrogant and egotistical approach to climate science by Muller et al. is really not needed, nor recommended, for helping the IPCC to climb out of its self-inflicted pit of scientific corruption. Indeed, the Muller-BEST technique of forcing their "science" on the IPCC prior to a proper vetting and the peer reviewed process just adds a new stink to the existing odor of corruption.

Despite the "BEST" science only confirming what everyone accepted (that the world has warmed since the Little Ice Age), their grandiose public relations machinations belie the real objective: to rig/manipulate the IPCC report process via public pressure towards acceptance of the Muller et al. findings in the next IPCC report.

It's as simple and as crass as that. As they say, read the whole thing and make up your own mind of what's really going on.

Read here. The climate science peer review journal process has become just a total joke, with editors and reviewers constantly embarrassing themselves and their respective publications. The latest examples of biased hackdom include Eric Calais of Purdue University and Noah Diffenbaugh at Stanford, editors for the AGU's Geophysical Research Letters.

The AGU treatment of scientist Roger Pielke Jr. by its minions should come as no surprise though, since these editors are likely the useful idiots of AGU board members pushing non-scientific political agendas.

How bad is the process at the Geophysical Research Letters? Read the whole thing, then weep and/or laugh - it's really that bad at this publication.

"So you have two reviews that find the paper publishable, one recommending publication and the other coming down on the side of finding the paper "publishable" but certainly not enthusiastically...As the editor what would you do?

A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor's judgment of responsiveness

B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers

C) Reject the paper

D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review process

If you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL."

Thank you, Chris Mooney and the useful idiots of the academic world - destroying science and the journals with political correctness one step at a time.

Read here. The Worldwide Wildlife Federation (WWF) is a major green, anti-growth and anti-prosperity entity that appears to have unleashed an effective means to corrupt (ruin?) the IPCC process, its climate scientists and even a concerned public.

Step 1: Bribe the public with domestic and international travel reimbursement to report their own perceptions/reality of climate change - e.g. "I believe it now rains more in York".

Step 2: Bribe climate scientists with travel, leading conferences and hob-knobing amongst the wealthy and government elites by joining the WWF's "Climate Witness Scientific Advisory Panel".

Step 3: Then have these same pliable IPCC "climate scientists" take the publics reported perceptions and re-package them as supposed empirical evidence from actual scientific endeavors, with a persona of scientific gravitas.

Step 4: The WWF then sponsors or produces "scientific" reports using the results of steps 1 through 3 as the basis for the reports.

Step 5: The WWF compromised IPCC climate scientists then accept these WWF contrived-science reports as scientific gospel, positioning them as peer reviewed papers, when in fact they're the worst form of grey literature.

Literally, the strong stink of corrupted science is hard to ignore or dismiss with these new revelations.

"It is difficult to believe that any self-respecting scientist would have anything to do with the Climate Witness Panel after reading those eight pages. The WWF states baldly, right up front, that the purpose of the panel is to heighten the public’s sense of urgency. That particular phrase is used four times on the final page...In remarkably candid fashion the WWF says it wants to:

"inspire stronger action on climate change in the community. We aim to build a movement of individuals…who want to be active in addressing this threat."

No one, therefore, lied to these “leading climate scientists.” No one soft-peddled what was really going on. The WWF explicitly told them it wanted their help in frightening the public so that the WWF could build a movement."

Because the UN and governing elites did not fix the IPCC's Pachauri-problem, this type of climate science debasement by global warming alarmism proponents will also robustly taint the IPCC's 2013 report, as it destroyed the credibility of the 2007 report.

Read here. Climate scientist Andy Dessler produced research that was a supposed refutation of the Spencer and Braswell research. It was pointed out previously that Dessler chose not to use the same HadCRUT data as Spencer, which smacks one as an extreme form of cherry-picking.

If one is to challenge another scientist's research, should they not be held to the standard of using the same data to make their case? Well....apparently not in Dessler's case since he obviously is driven by a political agenda, not a scientific one.

So, what happens when the Dessler methodology uses the gold-standard HadCRUT data that Spencer used? As Steve McIntyre discovers, the new results actually resemble Spencer's output suggesting that clouds provide a negative feedback.

Well, everyone now knows why Dessler avoided the HadCRUT data. His refutation of the Spencer study was literally a sham.

"Having exactly replicated Dessler’s regression results and Figure 2a, I’ve repeated the exercise with CERES clear sky in combination with CERES all sky, and with the widely used HadCRUT3 series and got surprising results...The supposed relationship between CLD forcing and temperature is reversed: the slope is -0.96 w/m2/K rather than 0.54 (and with somewhat higher though still low significance)."

Read here. The violence-prone and globally discredited Ben Santer has Climategate friends (Kevin Trenberth and Andy Dessler) who recently claimed that the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study is invalid because it did not include prior research to their liking.

"Santer et al ignored an important paper...Trends are computed for different time periods (e.g. see figure 2 in Christy et al 2010), and should have been compared with the model predictions...The failure of Santer et al to include a very relevant paper with respect to their analysis is one of the justifications for Wolfgang Wagner to resign from Remote Sensing in response to claims that Spencer and Braswell (S&B) ignored relevant papers that disagreed with S&B."

Fair is fair.....Santer et al. is simply discredited due to this lack of respect for the new era of Climategate-style research. Santer needs to apologize to the previous research authors for this gross lack of scientific research rigor, and he could also finally apologize for threatening another climate scientist with violent harm while off his meds. ;-)

Read here. New research published today by Andy Dessler, an IPCC Climategate scientist, appears to have major shortcomings. His new study was greased, like goose leavings, through the peer reviewed process in just a few weeks, which may have contributed to the work's shoddiness.

Supposedly, Dessler's new research was to be a refutation of the Spencer and Braswell 2011 study that revealed clouds were likely to be a negative climate feedback. Instead of doing an apple-to-apple comparison though, Dessler chose a different temperature dataset (a non-consensus dataset avoided by the IPCC) than the Spencer research.

Unfortunately, the choice of non-HadCRUT, non-IPCC dataset, reflects the unbridled cherry-picking temptation that the Dessler research fell victim to. If the HadCRUT dataset is the IPCC benchmark that Spencer research followed, then Dessler should have met the scientific challenge by using the same best-of-breed data that the IPCC demands.

It now seems obvious that Dessler knew his research would falter if based on the gold-standard of the IPCC. If this wasn't the case, why not use the gold-standard?

Even with his cherry-picking of the dataset, Dessler research does not hold up to the statistical scrutiny that Steve McIntyre brings to the table. It didn't take long for Steve to ascertain that the positive cloud feedback that Dessler claims might not be so "positive."

"Doing the same regression with 4-month lagged relationships (which both Dessler and SB agree to be more significant than the instantaneous relationship), the sign of the slope is reversed. Whereas Dessler 2010 had reported a slope of 0.54 +- 0.72 (2σ) W/m2/K, the regression with lagged variables is -0.90 +- 0.95 w/m2/K and has better diagnostics...Given that the even the lagged relationship is weak, I’m reluctant to say that analysis using the methods of Dessler 2010 established a negative feedback, but it does seem to me that they cannot be said to have established the claimed positive feedback...Perhaps the editor of Science will send a written apology to Kevin Trenberth."

Objectively, if the Dessler rushed peer reviewed research is the best that mainstream climate scientists can deliver against the Spencer and Braswell study, then it's a case closed. Clouds do appear to be a negative feedback mechanism within the climate system as the Spencer 2011 work suggests.

That great climate "scientist," whose political hack and anti-science behavior is widely condoned by the scientific "elite" establishment, is at it again. Kevin Trenberth has forced the editor of a science journal not only to resign his position, but to personally write Trenberth a humiliating apology note. Why?

Read here and here. Trenberth, and his IPCC Climategate comrades, did not like the fact that said editor allowed an article to be published in the Remote Sensing journal without his approval.

Of course, we've written about Trenberth before, not in the kindest terms. To our way of thinking, he is the epitome of a political hack scientist performing mediocre science, using his position of power to destroy reputations and lives of those who challenge his scientific opinions - hey, his most recent actions are living proof of that and are robustly indisputable.

Read here. To be fair, in terms of CO2-climate science how good is Trenberth? Does the benefit of his CO2-climate science skill/capabilities outweigh the costs of his poisonous, unprofessional and ugly behavior in the realm of science?

Well, he's the one, long on record, saying additional CO2 emissions would increase the frequency and intensity of severe weather events. And, as with almost all his climate predictions and speculation, Trenberth has been wrong (as shown in the below charts - click on images to enlarge). Ergo, his climate science skill is at best mediocre.

All images from JoNova site. Arrows added by 'C3'.As clearly shown, the increase of CO2 emissions has not caused Trenberth's predicted increase in severe weather frequency and intensity.

Trenberth even confirmed the bogosity of his brand of IPCC "climate science" with his infamous "travesty" comment in the Climategate emails regarding the lack of global warming. His mediocrity as a climate scientist is readily apparent, from even his own lips.

Speaking of resignations, reflecting back on the last few years, is it time for Trenberth to resign his American taxpayer funded position because of his personal vendettas against those he disagrees with? Is it time for Trenberth to resign because of the irreparable harm he is doing to the general science community's reputation with his bizarre, ego-driven behavior?

Is it finally time for Trenberth to apologize to the American taxpayer for being such an incompetent climate scientist? (In all honesty, a freaking Ouija board would produce better results than Trenberth et al., without a hint of the viciousness and ugliness.)

Read here. A key figure indicating the presence of scientific fraud is that the number of papers retracted after publication has grown by some 15-times since 2001.

No wonder so many of the Climategate scientists resist releasing their studies data and algorithms - hey, if released, the scientific fraud paper retraction rate would likely jump to 30-times. ;-)

""The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."....."Journals all want to have spectacular results," she said. "Increasingly, they're willing to publish more risky papers."....."journals and research institutions don't have adequate systems in place to properly investigate misconduct.".....The apparent rise in scientific fraud, said Dr. Horton "is a scar on the moral body of science.""

""Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold, data compiled for The Wall Street Journal by Thomson Reuters reveal.""

Read here and here. The anti-democratic forces unleashed by the green/left/liberal/progressive collaboration has been well documented by their own unequivocal and unprecedented statements. It appears, though, the talking is done, and the time for legally and physically suppressing catastrophic- climate skeptics is the now preferred means being implemented by the ruling class and "elites."

"The tactic of suing critics of AGW theory to silence them isn’t Mann’s alone, and it isn’t the only extracurricular means the global warmists use in attempts to shut up dissenters. The BBC recently announced that in an effort to be more attuned to the scientific “consensus,” it would no longer strive to provide balanced coverage of climate issues."

As the "consensus" science that human CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming has utterly failed (as the skeptics predicted), the green/left climate alarmist community is now turning to techniques honed by Stalin himself.

The hate, terrorization and censorship techniques utilized by Stalin against his critics and opponents started small, but ultimately grew to the point of complete control of all information and thinking - literally, skeptics of the communists and Stalin were stifled, shot or thrown in the Gulag.

A fascinating series of videos describing the machinations of Stalin can be found here: part1, part2, part3, part4, part5 and part6. Once viewed, one can understand why the Michael Manns of the world, the BBC and major science lobbying associations are so enamored with many of the Stalin-esque tactics.

In order to institutionalize this approach at major government agencies (ie, EPA, NOAA, NASA), Obama chose agency/cabinet heads who would bring the fringe Big Green's politicized science to bear. No better example of this approach is the Obama appointment of a Big Green zealot, the anti-growth Environmental Defense Fund's own Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who is actively putting in place the Orwellian ministry called the "Climate Service Office," where the green's fictional science becomes truth.

"She followed the EDF party line with the fisheries and can be anticipated to follow it on cap and trade. In both cases, the EDF stances are the extreme environmentalist positions...EDF's fisheries position: "Fisheries are depleted and fishermen are losing their jobs. Catch shares are the way forward." Once given the power of NOAA, Dr. Lubchenco wasted little time in implementing the EDF tool of choice for fisheries, Catch Shares Management, sometimes derisively termed cap and trade of the fisheries...EDF's global warming position: the science is settled, global warming is "accelerating at an alarming rate," and the answer is cap and trade. I have little doubt that Dr. Lubchenco and her henchmen will adopt and endorse the EDF posture, with all the sociological and economic disruptions it entails."

Read here. The IPCC and most Climate alarmist scientists long ago devoted their efforts to supporting the extremist/radical green political agenda. There is plenty of documentation of this support and the lengths to which climate scientists pursue their ideologue agenda.

The most obvious way to show support is to become lapdogs of the fringe green organizations advocating energy and economic policies that are anti-business, anti-consumer and anti-growth. Globally, Canadian scientists are some of the best lapdogs embracing this leftist/progressive, non-scientific utopia:

"I stumbled across a document the other day that rendered me speechless. ‘This can’t be right,’ I said to myself. ‘You’ve been parked in front of this computer so long you’ve begun to hallucinate.’...But my eyes were not, in fact, deceiving me. In December 2009 hundreds of Canadian scientists really did choose to publicly align themselves with a left-leaning advocacy organization. They actually thought this was a smart strategy – that this is how you persuade a Tory national government to take action on climate change."

Read here. Radical green, left-wing organizations such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resource Defense Council have consistently been pushing the hysteria agenda of polar ice sheet melting and subsequent catastrophic sea level rises. Unfortunately for these fringe outfits, peer reviewed science and empirical evidence exposes the hysteria for what it is - pure B.S. bogosity.

"The Antarctic ice sheet is one of the two polar ice packs of the Earth. It covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million square km and contains 30 million cubic km of ice.

Ok, so the glaciers in question are allegedly melting at 10 cubic km per year, which is 1/3,000,000 of the Antarctic ice. That means it would take 30 years to melt 1/100,000 of the Antarctic ice, or 300 cubic km. So the ice is melting at a rate equivalent to a human losing 1 of his/her 100,000 hairs every 30 years.

Approximately how many hairs are on a human head? Obviously, the number varies from person to person, but in general the answer is that the human head has about 100,000 strands of hair."

Read and view here. The greens/lefties/libs/progressives ludicrous climate exaggerations, science stupidity and gross intolerance of others is on full display in these videos. Let's hope they keep insulting the intelligence of the public because it's working big time in winning the war for the lukewarmers and C-AGW skeptics.

In the internet age, the lies, threats and propaganda of the left's totalitarian ambitions, as represented by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resource Defense Council, no longer works so well, eh? In today's wired world, it's not such a surprise since it has become common knowledge what the radical green, anti-CO2 movement is all about.

Read here, here and here. As these three articles indicate, the IPCC has failed miserably at making climate predictions, despite IPCC claims that their "consensus science" allows them to predict future climate scenarios out some 100 years or more.

Definition of a fortuneteller: "One who professes to predict future events"

The IPCC is a political agency of the UN, which is tasked with proving that human CO2 emissions cause global warming. The IPCC conducts absolutely zero scientific research. Instead, the IPCC seeks out agreeable 3rd party research and propaganda of green groups that they then reposition as confirmed, "robust," scientific evidence of CO2's harm.

According to Pachauri[IPCC's lead "climate scientist"] a “rapid transformation of the economic system” is required"....."Affluent countries, he says, “have to start changing direction. They can’t continue to consume at this level.” "We have been so drunk with this desire to produce and consume more and more whatever the cost to the environment that we’re on a totally unsustainable path. I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it."

As can be seen, and is also freely admitted by most "elites," politics and global governance and economic transformation are the driving force of the IPCC's activities.

Its Climategate scientists focus the majority of their efforts on the political agenda objective, and as a result, the actual climate science is forsaken to the trace amounts of atmospheric gas - the CO2 god. Thus, this UN sponsored politicization of climate science turns accepted scientific forecasting techniques into little more than bizarre and alarmist fortunetelling...ergo, the IPCC can't predict squat about the climate.

Read here and here. So far, 2011 has produced a number of disastrous events including: extreme cold and snow, earthquakes, tsunamis, radiation releases, floods, fires, rainstorms and tornadoes. Recently, this has led the IPCC's big-guns, the ones who provided us with Climategate and put climate science into such deep disrepute, to opine that human CO2 and global warming are to blame for these severe weather events and other 2011 calamities.

In the realm of nature and Earth's climate though, a lot of really bad stuff happens and humans are not the cause of it. Take 1878/1879 for example - below are samples of what the newspapers and etc. reported those years. Be thankful it's not the 1878/1879 period, or many other really bad years.

1878: Southern England Suffers Rare Tornado, Followed By Snow

1878: Winter In England Is 5.4 Degrees Colder Than Average

1878: Devastating Hurricane Strikes Tahiti

1878: Terrible Australian Drought Followed By Disastrous Floods

1878: Ceylon Hit By Multiple Floods Causing Great Property Damage

1878: Indian Ocean Cyclone Wipes Bourbon Island Clean

1878: Immense Floods Overwhelm Sacramento, California Region

1878: Great Floods In England's Thames Valley

1878: Hundreds Lost At Sea During Bay of Biscay, Spain Hurricane

1878: Wisconsin Tornado Hits Multiple Rural Towns, 30 People Killed

1878: France Experiences Large Floods

1878: Three Year Massive Drought & Famine Ends In India

1878: Officially announced that 7,000,000 persons have died of “famine in China.”

1879: 70 Million Chinese People Starving From “2 centuries of climatic change almost without a parallel”

1879: Account – Destructive Earthquakes Hit Japan Every Ten Years

1879: 165 MPH Winds Pummel North Carolina

1879: Half A Million Dead In Brazil From Drought, Starvation And Pestilence

Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt and Kevin Trenberth are individuals who will use any disaterous event, regardless of the science and empirical evidence, to bolster the fortunes of their failed AGW hypothesis. Unfortunately for these IPCC "scientists", history is replete with years of disasterous events prior to large human CO2 emissions. And every year, more and more of the global public recognizes that the truth is different than what Mann, Schmidt and Trenberth claim.

Read here. A famous climate scientist takes the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to task for a bogus climate model study where the scientists fraudulently believe that models have told them what regional climate conditions will be during the late 21st century. These virtual climate simulated predictions are about as reliable as astrology, tarot cards, a Oujia board or crystallomancy.

First, Roger Pielke (senior) points out the "scientists" used global climate models to predict regional climates, which is well known to be climate science malpractice. Simply put, global climate models are absolutely worthless as prediction tools for for regional purposes, let alone for global purposes.

Second, the ORNL researchers literally claim that output from virtual computer simulations as "scientific" evidence, which is scientifically absurd. This claim by itself is direct evidence of how science and the peer-reviewed journals have have gone-off-the-rails in desires to enhance careers and champion political agendas.

"However, this article (and the climate modeling research program at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, if this paper is typical) has been derailed from the proper assessment of the skill at climate prediction...Instead, as illustrated in the paper below, they have adopted the scientifically flawed approach of making regional climate forecasts decades into the future. The journal, Geophysical Research Letters, by accepting such a prediction paper, is similarly compromising robust science...The use of the term “evidence” with respect to climate models illustrates that this study is incorrectly assuming that models can be used to test how the real world behaves...Models are hypotheses and need to be tested against real data. However, the climate models have not been shown skill at predicting...there is no way to perform this test until those decades occur."

Read here and here. Let's say you are a NASA climate scientist and have been on record for a very long time that the world is warming due to human CO2 emissions - despite the evidence to the contrary. And let's say you decide to produce a new study to absolutely prove your case by showing how the oceans are heating due to an energy imbalance.

"Improving observations of ocean temperature confirm that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. This energy imbalance provides fundamental verification of the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change."

Finally, let's say you want to enhance your study with graphs that will bolster your case. Then you would use the below graph if you're a NASA scientist with a political agenda, with the actual empirical science being a lower priority. (click on images to enlarge) (image source)

Notice the 1980 starting point for the above graph. Why do you think a NASA scientist would start the graph at 1980 when there is data all the way back to 1955? Oh, here's why. (image source)

Obviously, the ocean heat data prior to 1980 reveals both large increases and decreases of an inconvenient nature that the NASA scientist does not want to bring any attention to.

Of course, if the NASA scientist wasn't just pursuing a political agenda he might of also have brought attention to the fact that the majority of ocean basins (5 of 7) have recently been losing heat, or are flat, in direct contrast with his hypothesis that they are gaining from a CO2-caused energy "imbalance." (image source)

And, if the NASA scientist really desired to mislead policymakers, he would be sure not to include the sea surface temperatures as shown below. Gee, global sea temps seem to be highly variable with a recent significant decline, which neither condition seems to match the NASA "analysis" that oceans are overheating because of an energy "imbalance." (image source)

Wouldn't it be great if we could still trust that our government scientists are objective and truthful, sans their personal and political agenda bullshit?

Most gore-green scientists would not waste this type opportunity by presenting scientific truth, especially when the empirical evidence does not match the desired scary story. And Dr. Richard Somerville was no exception when giving his March 8, 2011 testimony.

The above linked-to analysis of Somerville's testimony is eye-opening to say the least. The man is definitely a gore-green, global warmist shill who won't even speak factually about the actual global temperature trends, let alone climate change. Case in point:

BTW, there is a single truth that Somerville did exhibit during his testimony: an instinctive survival reaction shared by all gore-green scientists that necessitates avoidance of empirical climate evidence at all costs.

Read here. We live in an era where incredibly bad science, with marginal scientists and questionable techniques having huge negative impacts. In the case of the negative climate science impact, think of how many billions of dollars have been diverted from needed scientific research in other fields because of the global warming catastrophe hype.

Unfortunately, it's not only the AGW alarmist scientists who have caused harm to the scientific methods and processes, as this article establishes, while also suggesting the incentive for mediocre scientists to dominate the MSM with bad science.

"The Guardian has a blog post up by three neuroscientists decrying the state of hype in the media related to their field, which is fueled in part by their colleagues seeking "impact.".....unacceptable gulf between, on the one hand, the evidence-bound conclusions reached in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and on the other, the heavy spin applied by scientists to achieve publicity in the media. Are we as neuroscientists so unskilled at communicating with the public, or so low in our estimation of the public's intelligence, that we see no alternative but to mislead and exaggerate?...Somewhere down the line, achieving an impact in the media seems to have become the goal in itself, rather than what it should be: a way to inform and engage the public with clarity and objectivity, without bias or prejudice."

Read here and here. Science magazine, and others of its establishment ilk, have attempted mightily to push the IPCC's political agenda of CO2-induced catastrophic global warming. Fortunately, blogs by scientists are identifying the AGW anti-science that the establishment is attempting to foist on policymakers and the public.

Consider this fisking by a scientist of an article written by an establishment AGW-religion believer and published by Science:

"The paleogeography of late Eocene Earth was visibly different than Earth today, and even more significantly different in terms of its effect on climate. The truth of the matter is that Earth, as it existed 35 mya [millions of years ago], is gone and will never return. The planet we inhabit is not the same or even very similar to that vanished world. Kiehl's specious assertion to the contrary is not just wrong, it is deceptive...That a senior scientist like Kiehl, working in the field of climate science—specializing in “understanding Earth’s warm greenhouse climates for deep past time periods ranging between 300 to 50 million years ago”—could be ignorant of our planet's ever changing geology is beyond incredulous. And ruling out incompetence leaves only mendacity. Efforts to prop up the discredited theory of CO2 driven anthropogenic global warming without the support of computer models fall far short. Take away their bogus climate models and promoters of global warming are left only with lies and half-truths."

Read here. Month after month we see new revelations that the Climategate-style of science promoted by the alarmist IPCC is one of shoddiness and extremes. As with the incredible errors discovered during the infamous Glaciergate fiasco, now a new peer-reviewed study finds that Alaska's glacier loss has been (surprise!) "overestimated" by some 33%+.

The new Berthier et al. research highlighted the massive uncertainties associated with climate science, and that previous IPCC proclamations about the Earth's climate conditions continue to be exposed as serial exaggerations, designed to frighten policymakers.

"...a team of five scientists from France, Arizona, and British Columbia focused their attention on what has happened to glaciers in Alaska over the past 50 years.....“However, these estimates of ice loss in Alaska are based on measurements of a limited number of glaciers that are extrapolated to constrain ice wastage in the many thousands of others. Uncertainties in these estimates arise, for example, from the complex pattern of decadal elevation changes at the scale of individual glaciers and mountain ranges.” .....the massive Columbian glacier (in the center) has experienced significant ice mass loss over the past five decades. However, the smaller Harvard glacier to the west has “thickened and advanced” according to the authors.....“We find that between 1962 and 2006, Alaskan glaciers lost 41.9 ± 8.6 km3 yr-1 of water 34% less than estimated earlier. Reasons for our lower values include the higher spatial resolution of our glacier inventory as well as the reduction of ice thinning underneath debris and at the glacier margins, which were not resolved in earlier work. We suggest that estimates of mass loss from glaciers and ice caps in other mountain regions could be subject to similar revisions.”" [E. Berthier, E. Schiefer, G.K.C. Clarke, B. Menounos, and F. Rémy2010: Nature GeoScience]

Read here. This awesome display of frakking ignorance and stupidity about global warming and weather by an "elite" scientist is simply stunning. Per this episode of TV "science," is it any wonder that Democrats/liberals/progressives, who live, breath and die the mainstream media political agenda, are by far the dumbest citizens when it comes to science issues? (BTW, Virgina, there is no goblin living under your bed, autismis not caused by vaccines, GM foods are not dangerous to your health, and global warming is not current reality.)

"Kaku showed up on the CBS Early Morning show on Groundhog day, and it sure felt like it. Essentially parroting his CNN.com opinion blog from last week, Kaku eloquently, as if reading from the Presidential TelePrompter, butchered the field of climate science in his tortured explanation of global warming fueled snowstorms. Please, someone from the Climate Change Rapid Response Team issue a press release with all of your names on it repudiating this nonsense.....No. The Gulf of Mexico does not have “increased temperature”. It is actually historically, anomalously cold right now. Does he know that the non-stop infiltration of Arctic cold blasts actually chills the Gulf of Mexico? The La Nina has cooled the entire planet due to changes in the tropical eastern Pacific. It’s anomalously cold as well, as cold as it ever was in the past 30-years or maybe more."

Dear ignorant liberal: Instead of watching celebrities tell you what to think about science, turn off the progressives-boob tube and go read some peer-reviewed articles. Give your brain some food, please.